Eastern temperate North Pacific offshore killer whales (Orcinus orca): Occurrence, movements, and insights into feeding ecology

Beginning in the late 1980s, large groups of previously unidentified killer whales (Orcinus orca) were sighted off the west coast of Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Scientists working in this region produced two killer whale photo-identification catalogues that included both transient (mammal-eating) whales and 65 individual whales that investigators believed represented a distinct killer whale community (Ford et al. 1992, Heise et al. 1993). It was thought that these killer whales maintained a generally offshore distribution and were provisionally termed “offshores”; a term that has since been used as a population identifier for the eastern temperate North Pacific offshore killer whale population. Then in September 1992, 75 unidentified whales entered the Strait of Juan de Fuca just south and east of Victoria, British Columbia (Walters et al. 1992). Although most of these whales had not been seen before, two were matched to killer whales in the Queen Charlotte photo-identification catalogue (Ford et al. 1992, Heise et al. 1993) and were thus listed as “offshore” killer whales. During a similar time period, other large groups of killer whales, previously unidentified, were also being sighted off Alaska and California (Dahlheim et al. 1997; Nancy Black and Alisa Schulman- Janiger, unpublished data, respectively).

A Porpoise, Australophocaena dioptrica, Previously Identified As Phocoena spinipinnis, From Heard Island

Guiler, Burton and Gales (1987) reported a cranium (Tasmanian Museum No. A141 1) they identified as belonging to Burmeister’s porpoise, Phocoena spinipinnis Burmeister, 1865 from Heard Island (53°S 73°30’E). They noted that P. spinipinnis was previously known only from the cold-temperate coastal waters of South America and claimed that this cranium was evidence that the species has a much wider distribution than previously known. We have examined the photographs and details of their specimen and re-identify it here as Australophocaena dioptrica (Lahille, 1912) (family Phocoenidae). Barnes (1985) listed several features that distinguish the skulls of species within the subfamily Phocoenoidinae (including A. dioptrica) from those species within the Phocoeninae (including Phocoena spp.). Features that distinguish A. dioptrica from P. spinipinnis, dearly visible in the published photographs of the cranium from Heard Island, include: a relatively small, oval-shaped temporal fossa; an elevated, high-vaulted braincase that slopes abruptly onto the narial region; relatively large, high and convex premaxillary bosses; dorso-ventrally expanded zygomatic process of the squamosal; short and antetoposteriorly expanded postorbital process of the fronds; and maxillae extendmg nearly to the dorsal margin of the supraoccipital on the top of the skull. In all these features, the Heard Island specimen conforms with those of A. dioptrica. Crania of A. dioptrica have been illustrated by Hamilton (1941), Norris and McFarland (1958), Brownell (1975), Fordyce et al. (1984), and Barnes (1985). Crania of P. spinipinnis have been illustrated by Norris and McFarland (1958) and Brownell and Praderi (1984).

Zoonotic Diseases in the Changing Arctic

Compatible with the biotic uniformity of northern regions, the occurrence of certain organisms which cause zoonotic diseases is general throughout the Arctic. In the past, most frequently affected by such diseases have been aboriginal peoples whose way of life involved encroachment upon naturally occurring parasite-host assemblages. Now, as changes take place in socioeconomic conditions in the Arctic, the importance of zoonotic diseases as a cause of morbidity may lessen among such peoples, but on the other hand, more nonaborigines may be affected. Although my remarks relate mainly to Alaska, again the biotic uniformity of the North seems to have its effect even with regard to man's activity, for similar changes are occurring throughout the arctic zone. Thus far, the natural environment has not been extensively disrupted at higher latitudes, and the arctic regions remain important for basic research in the natural history of zoonotic diseases. Because of the biotic peculiarities of these regions, conditions there especially favor the investigation of parasite-host relationships and the transmission of disease among the inhabitants. Significant benefit to the human population, in the temperate zone as well, can be expected to accrue from future studies in an undisturbed arctic wilderness.

THE MONK PARAKEET IN NEW YORK

Attention was focused on the Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus) in New York State in 1971 when the first successful breeding record was documented for the state although Monk Parakeets had been noticed in New York and New Jersey since 1968 (Bull, 1971). Since 1971 awareness of the bird’s potential for becoming an established species in New York has spread through several segments of the state’s populace. This awareness has been created primarily through two articles in the magazine published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), The Conservationist (Trimm, 1972) (Trimm, 1973); several articles in popular magazines, Parade, Yankee, Sports Afield; journals, American Birds and Kingbird; county cooperative extension bulletins and newsletters; and in numerous newspapers throughout the Northeast. The Monk Parakeet is about 12 inches long (Mourning Dove size), weighs about 90 grams, and is native to Argentina and other temperate regions of South America. The bird is pale green with a soft gray forehead and breast, some blue on the flight feathers and a flesh-colored bill. They are gregarious throughout the year. The Monk Parakeet differs from other members of the parrot family in that it builds large communal nests of sticks. Each pair of parakeets has its own private compartment with a downward-pointing tunnel entrance from the inner unlined compartment. The nest is used as sleeping quarters year round and live twigs cut by the bird are continually added to the structure (Bump, 1971). A brief review of the bird’s history in New York shows that the bird remained a mere curiosity until 1972. At that time, because the population seemed to be increasing and because information gleaned from the literature and from those with first-hand experience with the bird in its native haunts of South America indicated that the bird posed a serious potential agricultural problem, several prominent individuals, birding and conservation societies, and state and federal agencies took the position that the bird should be retrieved or removed from the wild.